Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the key traits: this is a create/publish side effect, and generation completes 'within minutes', which sets a latency expectation. It omits whether duplicate requests are deduplicated, whether it requires auth or has rate limits, and how the resulting record is later retrieved.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the trigger condition front-loaded and no filler. The final clause about guessing partially repeats the opening condition, but the redundancy is minor and reinforces the intended behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the trigger, the side effect, and the turnaround time. It would be stronger if it noted how to retrieve the generated record afterward or what happens when generation fails.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'query'. The description's phrasing ('your specific error or symptom') echoes the schema's own wording rather than adding format or scoping guidance beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Request a new operational experience') and anchors it to a concrete triggering condition in the sibling tool ('when corpusfetch_search returns no match'). An agent can distinguish this from search and fetch tools without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear when-to-use trigger (novel problem, no existing record applies) and an explicit alternative to avoid ('use this instead of guessing'). It does not address other plausible routes such as corpusfetch_lookup_exception or corpusfetch_lookup_symptom, which could also cover a specific error, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.